Radiotherapy plays an important role in improving the survival outcome in patients with T1-2N1M0 breast cancer - a joint analysis of 4262 real world cases from two institutions

Overall survival after mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.

Breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Background

To compare recurrence and survival outcomes between breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

Methods

The data of 730 patients who underwent NACT between 2000 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 104 (14.2%) patients received BCS and 626 (85.8%) received mastectomy. Locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastases (DM), disease-free survival (DFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of BCS versus mastectomy on outcomes was assessed by multivariate Cox models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates between the two groups.

Results

The median follow-up of BCS and mastectomy groups were 86.5 and 87.4 months, respectively. There were significant differences in distribution of most baseline characteristics between two groups. Compared with those who underwent mastectomy, the patients with BCS had similar 5-year LRR, DM, and DFS rates, but had significantly higher 5-year BCSS (98.9% vs. 90.4%, P = 0.005) and OS (98.9% vs. 90.1%, P = 0.003) rates. Multivariate analysis also showed that BCS significantly improved BCSS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.85, P = 0.025) and OS (HR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.79, P = 0.018). After IPTW adjustment, the LRR, DM, DFS, BCSS and OS between two groups had no significant differences.

Conclusions

The recurrence and survival outcomes are comparable with BCS and mastectomy. Thus, BCS is a safe treatment option for selected breast cancer patients after NACT.

The use of Hybrid Techniques in Whole-Breast Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

Objectives The development of new techniques in radiotherapy (RT) provides a better planned target volume (PTV) dose distribution while further improving the protection of organs at risk (OARs). The study aims to present the dosimetric results of studies using hybrid techniques in whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT). Methods: This systematic literature review was conducted by scanning the relevant literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Among the parameters are dose values for PTV and OARs beam contribute ratios, the value of monitors, and treatment times for different RT techniques. Initially, 586 articles were identified; 196 duplicate articles were removed leaving 391 articles for screening. Three-hundred and thirty-seven irrelevant articles were excluded, leaving 54 studies assessed for eligibility. A total of 22 articles met the search criteria to evaluate dosimetric results of hybrid and other RT techniques in WBRT. Results: According to the dosimetric data of the studies, hybrid intensity-modulated RT (H-IMRT) and hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) techniques give dosimetrically advantageous results in WBRT compared to other RT techniques. Conclusion: Hybrid techniques using appropriate beams contribute value and show great promise in improving dosimetric results in WBRT. However, there is a need for new studies showing the long-term clinical results of hybrid RT.

Survival Comparisons between Breast Conservation Surgery and Mastectomy Followed by Postoperative Radiotherapy in Stage I-III Breast Cancer Patients: Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (Seer) Program Database

Background: This study aims to evaluate the overall and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy (RT) compared with mastectomy plus RT in resectable breast cancer. Moreover, the aim is to also identify the subgroups who benefit from BCS plus RT and establish a predictive nomogram for stage II patients. Methods: Stage I−III breast cancer patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 1990 and 2016. Patients with available clinical information were split into two groups: BCS plus RT and mastectomy plus RT. Kaplan−Meier survival analysis, univariate and multivariate regression analysis, and propensity score matching were used in the study. Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated based on stratified Cox univariate regression analyses. A prognostic nomogram by multivariable Cox regression model was developed for stage II patients, and consistency index (C-index) and calibration curve were used to evaluate the accuracy of the nomogram in the training and validation set. Results: A total of 24,590 eligible patients were enrolled. The difference in overall survival (OS) and BCSS remained significant in stage II patients both before and after PSM (after PSM: OS: HR = 0.8536, p = 0.0115; BCSS: HR = 0.7803, p = 0.0013). In stage II patients, the survival advantage effect of BCS plus RT on OS and BCSS was observed in the following subgroups: any age, smaller tumor size (<1 cm), stage IIA (T2N0, T0−1N1), ER (+), and any PR status. Secondly, the C-indexes for BCSS prediction was 0.714 (95% CI 0.694−0.734). The calibration curves showed perfect agreement in both the training and validation sets. Conclusions: BCS plus RT significantly improved the survival rates for patients of stage IIA (T2N0, T0−1N1), ER (+). For stage II patients, the nomogram was a good predictor of 5-, 10-, and 15-year BCSS. Our study may help guide treatment decisions and prolong the survival of stage II breast cancer patients.

Improved Survival after Breast-Conserving Therapy Compared with Mastectomy in Stage I-IIA Breast Cancer

Simple Summary

The majority of patients with breast cancer are suitable for either breast-conserving therapy, consisting of breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy, or mastectomy alone. In the present study, we compared survival outcomes in 1360 patients affected with early-stage breast cancer (stage I-IIA) according to the type of local treatment. We confirmed that patients treated with breast-conserving therapy had a lower rate of local, regional, and distant disease recurrences, and at least equivalent overall survival compared to those treated with mastectomy alone. Our results add to previous research showing a potential benefit of breast-conserving therapy when compared to mastectomy in patients suitable for both treatments at baseline.

Abstract

In the current study, we sought to compare survival outcomes after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy alone in patients with stage I-IIA breast cancer, whose tumors are typically suitable for both locoregional treatments. The study cohort consisted of 1360 patients with stage I-IIA (T1–2N0 or T0–1N1) breast cancer diagnosed between 2001 and 2013 and treated with either BCT (n = 1021, 75.1%) or mastectomy alone (n = 339, 24.9%). Median follow-ups for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.9 years (range, 0.3–15.9) and 7.5 years (range, 0.2–25.9), respectively. Fifteen (1.1%), 14 (1.0%) and 48 (3.5%) patients experienced local, regional, and distant relapse, respectively. For the whole cohort of patients, the estimated 5-year DFS and OS were 96% and 97%, respectively. After stratification based on the type of local treatment, the estimated 5-year DFS for BCT was 97%, while it was 91% (p < 0.001) for mastectomy-only treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting matching based on confounding confirmed that mastectomy was associated with worse DFS (HR 2.839, 95% CI 1.760–4.579, p < 0.0001), but not with OS (HR 1.455, 95% CI 0.844–2.511, p = 0.177). In our study, BCT was shown to have improved disease-specific outcomes compared to mastectomy alone, emphasizing the important role of adjuvant treatments, including postoperative radiation therapy, in patients with early-stage breast cancer at diagnosis.

Optimizing Breast Reconstruction through Integration of Plastic Surgery and Radiation Oncology

Post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is an important adjunct to improve oncologic outcomes and survival in select breast cancer patients at increased risk for local recurrence. As recommendations for PMRT broaden, an increasing number of patients will have it included as part of their breast cancer treatment plan.

Cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatment approaches for early breast cancer: a retrospective matched cohort study from China

Background

Both breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction surgery are less popular in China, although they can improve patients’ quality of life. The main reason comes from the economy. There is currently no economic evaluation of different surgical treatment options for early breast cancer. Our study aims to assess the economic impact and long-term cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatments for early breast cancer. The surgical approaches are including mastectomy (MAST), breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and mastectomy with reconstruction (MAST+RECON).

Methods

Based on demographic data, disease-related information and other treatments, we applied propensity score matching (PSM) to perform 1: 1 matching among patients who underwent these three types of surgery in the tertiary academic medical center from 2011 to 2017 to obtain a balanced sample of covariates between groups. A Markov model was established. Clinical data and cost data were obtained from the medical records. Health utility values were derived from clinical investigations. Strategies were compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

After PSM, there were 205 cases in each group. In the matched data set, the distribution of covariates was fully balanced. The total cost of MAST, MAST+RECON and BCT was $37,392.84, $70,556.03 and $82,330.97, respectively. The quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) were 17.11, 18.40 and 20.20, respectively. Compared with MAST, MAST+RECON and BCT have an ICER of $25,707.90/QALY and $14,543.08/QALY, respectively. The ICER of BCT vs. MAST was less than the threshold of $27,931.04. The reliability and stability of the results were confirmed by Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

We believe that in the context of the limited resources in China, after comparing the three surgical approaches, BCT is the more cost-effective and preferred solution.